• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Teacher's Pet - the Chris Dawson case

lionking said:
Dawson has been arrested. Justice closing in...
Click to expand...

This was the opinion of the former director of the DPP

The NSW coroner has twice found that Chris Dawson most likely killed his wife, but the then director of public prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery, QC, declined to prosecute due to a lack of evidence.

"Without a body, without knowing first of all whether in fact she is dead, without knowing secondly if she is dead, how she died, it's very hard to mount a case of a reasonable prospect of conviction just on motive and the undefined existence of means and opportunity. That makes it very weak," he said.
Click to expand...


I'd therefore hope their case is more than just the "new evidence" heard in the Teachers Pet podcast, it was underwhelming to say the least. Some of it, the first babysitters comment that she saw Dawson being violent towards his wife - flicking her with a tea-towel - and everyone including a psychic swearing blind she was buried in the "soft soil" under the house - based on nothing at all, and ultimately proving worthless, says to me that you need to be very careful about accepting speculative evidence just because it is presented in a slick and compelling way.
 
Hard Cheese said:
This was the opinion of the former director of the DPP




I'd therefore hope their case is more than just the "new evidence" heard in the Teachers Pet podcast, it was underwhelming to say the least. Some of it, the first babysitters comment that she saw Dawson being violent towards his wife - flicking her with a tea-towel - and everyone including a psychic swearing blind she was buried in the "soft soil" under the house - based on nothing at all, and ultimately proving worthless, says to me that you need to be very careful about accepting speculative evidence just because it is presented in a slick and compelling way.
Click to expand...

All I want is for Dawson to face a jury.

The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.

Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
 
lionking said:
The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.
Click to expand...
There was the sighting of her on the Central Coast by one of her friends, but the podcaster only seemed interested in discrediting her as a fantasist.

IMO this is a case of neither side of the argument being particularly compelling. There's hard evidence for almost nothing.

lionking said:
Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
Click to expand...
Points at one *identified* person.

You could quite as easily posit a different theory where he did drop Lynette off at a bus stop, she attempted to hitch-hike and was killed by persons unknown. The ABC's Unravel podcast season 2 investigated a case *exactly* like that on the Northern Beaches, not too many years before Lynette disappeared. Trudie Adams was seen getting into a panel van and never seen again, presumably murdered because her body has never been found. Their investigation found a large number of women who had been abducted by two serial rapists operating from a car in that area from the early 70's through to the mid '80s, and they theorised that the victim may have been picked up by the same men and killed accidentally. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the defence use that specific case to put a credible alternative to Dawson's jury, because of the location, the time frame, and the similar lack of forensic evidence.

Anyway, I think it is most likely Dawson was somehow involved, but at the same time I have a very uneasy feeling that he's getting served some kangaroo justice whipped up by the media. It'll be interesting to see how much more of a case they actually have.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
All I want is for Dawson to face a jury.

The circumstantial evidence certainly trumps the family of Dawson’s “confirmed” evidence that Lyn is still alive based on an alleged sighting on “Antique Roadshow” and someone telling someone else they saw her in Australia.

Lyn is dead without doubt. One must ask how this most likely happened. The finger points at only one person.
Click to expand...

The dilemma is this: take him to trial now and try to secure a conviction with the evidence they currently possess, or wait and see if more evidence surfaces. If they go to trial now and he is acquitted and next year someone comes across her remains deep in the woods somewhere, along with the only shovel Dawson was known to have ever owned covered in his DNA and the watch he wore for years, they're screwed.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
The dilemma is this: take him to trial now and try to secure a conviction with the evidence they currently possess, or wait and see if more evidence surfaces. If they go to trial now and he is acquitted and next year someone comes across her remains deep in the woods somewhere, along with the only shovel Dawson was known to have ever owned covered in his DNA and the watch he wore for years, they're screwed.
Click to expand...

Which is why an absolute double jeopardy approach is wrong.
 
They didn't mention this in the podcast. So much for "investigative journalism"

Outside the court today, Dawson's lawyer Greg Walsh told reporters he was aware of at least one other case when a mother went missing and was living a new life.

The case he was referring to was actually a member of Dawson's extended family - in a bizarre twist, the former mother-in-law of his brother Peter Dawson walked out on her three children in Sydney 60 years ago.

The woman secretly moved to New Zealand and remarried and died in 2002.

"While it seems most unusual that a lady, with the greatest respect of Lyn Dawson, would disappear and not have any contact with her children … it has happened."
Click to expand...
 
Hard Cheese said:
They didn't mention this in the podcast. So much for "investigative journalism"
Click to expand...

It’s from Dawson’s lawyer. Confirmation and context is required.

In any case, Dawson’s case is different. Do you agree that he had motive at least?
 
lionking said:
It’s from Dawson’s lawyer. Confirmation and context is required.

In any case, Dawson’s case is different. Do you agree that he had motive at least?
Click to expand...

I agree with the former director of the DPP -- a very weak one. That he wanted his wife out of the way so he could be with Joanne doesn't hold much water. A few days before Christmas he and Joanne drove to Queensland to start a new life together. His wife would have been out of the way then, why would he need to murder her? He had also put money down on a flat in Manly to live with Joanne at one point, so he was clearly aware that he did have options that weren't illegal. The suggestion then is that sometime between Christmas and the end of January his thinking changed from "leave my wife" to "murder my wife"...it doesn't make much sense when he knew he could achieve the same result much more easily and without committing a crime.

The other one they kept banging on about in the podcast was that potentially losing the house at Bayview was a financial motive, which is just nonsense. The comments were always "Chris got Joanne and he got the house, which is what he always wanted", and they kept going on how lovely it was and how much money it was worth. If he had attempted to run off and start a new life with Joanne in Queensland, or was preparing to go and live with her in a flat in Manly - knowing that leaving his wife would see her get half the property - he obviously can't have been that concerned about the financial cost of separation.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Which is why an absolute double jeopardy approach is wrong.
Click to expand...

Meh. The state should only proceed when it feels it has a very strong case. Not allowing double jeopardy prevents the state from going back to the same well several times in search of a jury that will convict. Given the time and expense of a jury trial for the defendant, and the unlimited resources of the state, I feel the prohibition of double jeopardy is a good safeguard.
 
Last edited:
The verdict is being read now. It’s a lengthy document. I think the judge will find Dawson guilty. At the moment he is dismissing any suggestion that Lynette left her home with no money, no clothes and not communicating with her children. With that possibility dismissed murder is almost certain in my view. We will know soon.
 
If anyone gets a chance, read or listen to Justice Harrison’s ruling. It took 5 hours to read, and I listened to every brilliant word. One thing I learnt is that when there is a trial by judge only (which was a massively wrong request by the defence) the judge has to read his reasons.

Dawson is reportedly “upset”. After getting away with 40 years of lying, I’m no doubt he is.
 
lionking said:
If anyone gets a chance, read or listen to Justice Harrison’s ruling. It took 5 hours to read, and I listened to every brilliant word. One thing I learnt is that when there is a trial by judge only (which was a massively wrong request by the defence)the judge has to read his reasons .
Click to expand...
Personally I favour this for common-law jury trials also,

lionking said:
Dawson is reportedly “upset”. After getting away with 40 years of lying, I’m no doubt he is.
Click to expand...
An appeal is inevitable. And might succeed.
 
catsmate said:
Personally I favour this for common-law jury trials also,


An appeal is inevitable. And might succeed.
Click to expand...

Oh there will be an appeal, but it might be difficult for the grounds to be granted given the thoroughness of the judgement. Jury verdicts can be more easily be appealed, but judge only verdicts tend to be much harder.

And even if granted, once the involuntary disappearance of the victim has been established (which is now beyond doubt) where does the defence go?

No, I think Dawson dies in jail.
 
lionking said:
Oh there will be an appeal, but it might be difficult for the grounds to be granted given the thoroughness of the judgement. Jury verdicts can be more easily be appealed, but judge only verdicts tend to be much harder.

And even if granted, once the involuntary disappearance of the victim has been established (which is now beyond doubt) where does the defence go?

No, I think Dawson dies in jail.
Click to expand...
No-where. It doesn't have to, the prosecution needs to demonstrate death, murder and that the accused was responsible.
Well he'll probably die soon enough, quite possibly during the appeals process.
 
Got to love it when people are irrationally vindictive on this here "sceptics'" forum!

Not to say that I don't believe this man factually did murder his wife, and in fact my starting-off point would be to accept the judge's verdict - until and unless I wanted to weigh all the evidence (and lack of evidence) for myself and take a more enlightened view (which, in this case, I do not). But I look on with wry interest at those who declare a suspect guilty, based upon little or no actual evidence, before a case has even been brought to a court... all the more so when they have no direct link to the case itself (and no, "I knew this guy in the 70s and I never liked him" is not a direct link to the case itself).

Oh well :)
 
catsmate said:
No-where. It doesn't have to, the prosecution needs to demonstrate death, murder and that the accused was responsible.
Well he'll probably die soon enough, quite possibly during the appeals process.
Click to expand...


In bizarro-world, convicted people have to prove their innocence before they have any chance of winning an appeal. It's all the rage round these parts!

(At least criminal lawyers and appeal-court judges know how the law actually works - and how it is designed to, and supposed to, work. And it may seem counterintuitive, but historically (in the anglo-saxon adversarial system) a significantly higher proportion of defence appeals succeed when the original trial was judge-only compared with a jury trial: single judges sitting alone make surprisingly (relatively) high numbers of reversible errors, and faith in the jury trial system is so sacrosanct that it's virtually impossible to appeal a reversible jury error.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom